Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[JWeinCom]

o_O.Q said:

JWeinCom said:

No... that isn't objective.  What is "most favorable" for man is an opinion.  That's why we have had, in secular or religious societies, thousands of different viewpoints on what is best for society.  Even "favorable" is a subjective matter.  Does favorable mean best for reproduction?  Happiness?  Best for only humans?  For the environment?  Animals?  Different cultures value these things in very different measures.

If you're going to claim that these stories are the best way man has to transmit values, you'll have to support that with some evidence, because it seems to be a rather shitty way.  There are, figuring very conservatively, well over a thousand different denominations of Christians who despite all using the same text as the basis of their values have reached wildly different conclusions.  To the extent where many of these groups have gone to war over which interpretation is valid.  It's hard to claim that this is a good way to transmit objective morality when the conclusions that are drawn are not at all consistent.

Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers, I fail to see how you can have objective morality, with or without god or religion.  

 

"What is "most favorable" for man is an opinion. "

 

so hang on its not objectively better to be fit rather than overweight?

to be informed over being ignorant?

to be social rather than anitsocial? etc?

 

"Different cultures value these things in very different measures."

 

correct, but there are core values all cultures agree on

 

"If you're going to claim that these stories are the best way man has to transmit values, you'll have to support that with some evidence"

 

the evidence is history

"There are, figuring very conservatively, well over a thousand different denominations of Christians who despite all using the same text as the basis of their values have reached wildly different conclusions.  "

 

and that is an inherent flaw in all communication... nothing man creates is perfect, there are always flaws no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do things

 

"Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers"

 

despite this we still utilise the scientific method... we don't allow the fact that we are flawed and limited beings stop us from investigating things and reaching conclusions

so hang on its not objectively better to be fit rather than overweight?

to be informed over being ignorant?

to be social rather than anitsocial? etc?

None of those have definitive answers.  And none of them are moral questions.  None of them would require an appeal to a supernatural being.

correct, but there are core values all cultures agree on

Agreeing on some values does not make for objective morality.

 

the evidence is history

You need to be more specific.  

despite this we still utilise the scientific method... we don't allow the fact that we are flawed and limited beings stop us from investigating things and reaching 

That has nothing to do with what I said, since you're only responding to the dependent clause of my sentence.

and that is an inherent flaw in all communication... nothing man creates is perfect, there are always flaws no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do things

So then belief in god does not enable objective morality.  Cool beans.  Guess it's settled.